OK, brilliant, you "experts" have concluded that the bomb would merely kill a few hundred instead of thousands. I sure do hope you all feel better.

This sounds a lot like the post '93 WTC bombing where everyone "knew" that Islamist Terrorists were just a bunch of bumpkins who could do no real harm. . .

Peaceful Muslim Man Who Threatened "South Park" Arrested.

Virginian, 20, charged with supporting overseas terrorist group.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0721101southpark1.html

Only way to prevent this is to deny muslims access to the country and deport those who declare Islam as their religion. No need to thank me just vote for me as the next rep from Staten island.

Would've, could've should've... what bullshit.

Thing is, the bad guys actually don't need to do it up big anymore with massive bombs to completely screw up our way of life. Our political leaders are so scared to appear soft that they'll take away our freedoms themselves as they have since 9/11 in the name of security. Just have one terrorist throw one hand grenade into a movie theater in Omaha, killing even one person, and watch the United States transform into the Land of Security Checkpoints.

The terrorists are winning. Osama stated long ago that his plan was not to beat us on the battlefield, or blow us up, his plan was to scare this country into bankruptcy.

A while back I decided to read one of Osama's speeches, not because I sympathize with him in any way but because I realized that I've only heard small sound bites but never really heard or read a whole speech and I wanted to understand what motivates such a man. I read a transcript of his 2004 speech and I was speechless. Forget his ideology, beliefs or whatever, what amazed me was his "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan" and how now six years later it seems like we're playing right into his hands.

Osama is, or was, a seasoned fighter he's been fighting wars all his life, while Bush was playing with his GI Joes, Osama was running around a desert with an AK, so he knows how to fight and that the only way a small army can defeat a much more powerful army is through the use of guerilla warfare. In his speech Osama boldly declares his "bleed-until-bankruptcy" plan. He indicates that this war will not be a traditional war but an economic war with his intention being to force this country to spend until we've lost our economic power. Keep in mind he himself waged this type of war with the Russians and won, so he knows exactly how to fight this type of war.

Here is an excerpt of Osama Bin Laden's 2004 Speech:

"All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

All Praise is due to Allah.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinises the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.

Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.

And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.

And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [When they pointed out that] for example, al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than $500 billion.

Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.

As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the mujahidin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan - with Allah's permission.

It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is ... you.



I suggest everyone reads the whole speech

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1964.cfm#down

As I read this six years later I find it haunting and every time I here about more millions and billions being spent for security or these wars, those words resonate within me, "bleed-until-bankrupt". Osama told us exactly what his intentions were and what his strategy was, and we've played right into his hands.

John,

I want to say I agree with you 100%, everyone should read the original Osama's transcripts. Really its worth doing for any person in the news if/when there is an original source available, to seek it out

when you rely on some intermediary to tell you what was said, in my experience lots of things get lost in translations.

I agree that the whole war on terror was lost the moment Bush made it about imposing democracy via war on the middle east...the support and goodwill the US had after 9/11 by every country (save for iraq) will not come back in my lifetime. AlQueda was blown out proportions to seem like an existential threat, when in reality 19 of them died that morning and there were only a few handful if that left in the world.

but whatever. what is done is done. While I agree the US may have bungled the war on terror for the majority of people in the USA, not everyone has the same interest. I dont see it as a one on one game/war between us and Osama, where one will win and one will lose.

The war has been hugely successful for some people, and these people I believe could care less about Osama and more about keeping the pretext of the war with terror alive for a variety of their own self interests.

careers are being built on fighting terror. fortunes are being made. the geo-political reality in the ME is being changed.

to the general american public these things dont matter. our relatives are over there fighting. the nations debt is at record levels, our savings is devalued, we deal with the threat of terrorism and the mechanations of security we have to go thru now..we're paying the price for the decisions made in how the govt decided to fight 'terrorism'

we may go bankrupt, but to the people riding the wave of fighting 'terrorism' this is immaterial. to them what looks like a debacale has been paying dividends for past 9 years. How many more years can they get out of it, Before people catch on? 5? 10?

then we'll be segued into worrying about a new enemy. we'll be told we're all in this together. its us vs them. I'm not buying any of it.

I had no input when the govt supported Osama in the 80s. I had no input when they decided on ME policy that insipred the the attacks, no input when they decided to attack Iraq and on and on. The govt takes no consideration of me when its makes its forgein policy, yet when its necessary, I'm supposed think of it as 'us' vs them? nah.

Bleed until bankrupt? That's a Boris Badanov plan there if I ever heard one. Like an evil plot to make the ocean wet, Obama being a cupful at best.

IMO our political leaders are not scared.

Being seen as fighting terrorism is just a tactic to gaining power. So long as the people are scared and they carry the mantle of fighting 'terrorism' the fanatics are incredibly useful.

Every effort in the world is going to be made to make it seem like AlQueda are more forminable than they are.

'thats why we need more money, more wars, more restrictions of americans!'

Every effort is going to be made to pro-long the war on terror to totally obfusicate and confuse the people about the political causes of terrorism.

'they hate our freedom', 'islam is trying to take over the world'

I don't buy it.

there are a number of 'ways' to win the war on terror that involve simple policy changes...but we dont pursue them cause thats the last thing the govt. What will they do when they arent protecting us from osama?

On April 17–18, 1995, McVeigh and Nichols removed their supplies from their storage unit in Herington, Kansas, where Nichols lived. They loaded 108 bags of high-grade ammonium nitrate fertilizer weighing 50 pounds (23 kg) each, three 55-U.S.-gallon (46 imp gal; 210 l) drums of liquid nitromethane, several crates of explosive Tovex, seventeen bags of ANFO, and spools of shock tube and cannon fuse into a Ryder rental truck.[51] The two then drove to Geary County State Lake, where they nailed boards onto the floor of the truck to hold the thirteen barrels in place and mixed the chemicals using plastic buckets and a bathroom scale.[52] Each filled barrel weighed nearly 500 pounds (230 kg).[53] McVeigh added more explosives to the driver's side of the cargo bay, which he could ignite at close range (risking his own life), with his Glock 21 pistol in case the primary fuses failed.[54] During McVeigh's trial, Lori Fortier (the wife of Michael Fortier) stated that McVeigh claimed to have arranged the barrels in order to form a shaped charge.[41] This was achieved by tamping the aluminum side panel of the truck with bags of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to direct the blast laterally towards the building.[55] Specifically, McVeigh arranged the barrels in the shape of a backwards J; he said later that for pure destructive power, he would have put the barrels on the side of the cargo bay closest to the Murrah Building; however, such an unevenly distributed 7,000-pound (3,200 kg) load might have broken an axle, flipped the truck over, or at least caused it to lean to one side, which could have drawn attention.[53]

McVeigh then added a dual-fuse ignition system accessible from the truck's front cab. He drilled two holes in the cab of the truck under the seat, while two holes were also drilled in the body of the truck. One green cannon fuse was run through each hole into the cab. These time-delayed fuses led from the cab of the truck, through plastic fish-tank tubing conduit, to two sets of non-electric blasting caps.[53] The tubing was painted yellow to blend in with the truck's livery, and duct-taped in place to the wall to make them harder to disable by yanking from the outside.[53] The fuses were set up to initiate, through shock tubes, the 350 pounds (160 kg) of Tovex Blastrite Gel "sausages", which would in turn set off the configuration of barrels. Of the thirteen filled barrels, nine contained ammonium nitrate and nitromethane, and four contained a mixture of the fertilizer and about 4-U.S.-gallon (3.3 imp gal; 15 L) of diesel fuel.[53] Additional materials and tools used for manufacturing the bomb were left in the truck to be destroyed in the blast.[53] After finishing the truck bomb, the two men separated; Nichols returned home to Herington and McVeigh with the truck to Junction City.

is this PROPGANDA fear mongering or a how to instruction manual for future terrorists???

we cant get the real story about how 911 was an inside job or how explosives brought down the towers but the govt is willing to put out the correct instructions for how to build a better than OKC bomb.

hold on wait a minute let me figure this out,

2x 5 gallon gas cans and 3x 20gallon propane cans and 250 lbs of the incorrect untreated fertilizer would be better than OKC????

Hypothetical question: If the bomb had gone off, would we be talking about building a mosque in Times Square ten years from know?

Not to mention a full tank of gas in the truck—a fire bomb like no other, millions of pieces of shrapnel—glass and metal. The impact crater would have been huge. The destruction of buildings would have been huge. The casualties would have been in the high hundreds or even thousands for sure.

Gasoline and propane are not explosive enough to create a "crater." Most likely, the car itself would have popped, there would have been some shrapnel, and then it would just burn. It would not have enough force to cause a crater in the street, nevermind damage any buildings except from shrapnel.

And I'm quite familiar with the block where it was parked...it's not nearly as busy as some adjacent blocks or TSq itself. Sure people would have freaked, but the number of dead would be limited to those standing within a few feet of the car, most likely not even dozens.

really? you think so?

here is a list of car bombings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings

find me one that has killed 'thousands' of people. find me one that killed 500 people. 400? 200?

you have truck bombs with thousands of pounds of explosives that dont do the damage they claim this bomb was going to do. why exaggerate beyond reason? why make sh*t up?

Car bombs by expert bomb makers go off all over the world and I can't think of one that has killed thousands. They're so full of shit. I think Beware of Small States and woodendesigner's comments hit it on the head. This was a very crude bomb with very limited potential and no where near Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma Bombing and they're releasing this "confidential" report to scare the masses into approving more security spending.

Come to think about our own American Terrorist Timothy McVeigh is still probably the most successful car bomber in the world.

Timothy McVeigh was never the most successful car bomber to begin with. The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing killed 241 people to Oklahoma City's 168.

I stand corrected but the second best is not bad either.

Not second, or third, or fourth, either. That would be the Nairobi Embassy bombing (212), Bali bombing (202), and at least one of the Yazidi, Iraq 2007 bombs (four bombs, 796 dead, which means at least one bomb killed 199 or more people). Wikipedia is your friend, is all I'm saying.

What is this? A challenge for a competent anti-American bomb maker? The NY Post is garbage.